Debates of Oct. 25th, 2002

Grain Transportation

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as prairie farmers try to salvage their crops they are faced with a lockout at the grain loading facilities in Vancouver.

The Minister of Labour claims that we have to allow the collective bargaining process to work, but this completely ignores the fact that it is not working. Grain handlers have been without a contract since December 2000 and have been locked out by the employer since August.

Substituting final offer arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism in place of a lockout or strike does not cancel further negotiations. It does not impose a settlement and it does not rule out any other non-disruptive method of settling the contract. It simply provides a specific settlement mechanism if no other agreement can be reached.

For the government to do nothing until grievous harm has occurred and then impose a settlement, as it has in the past, is doubly irresponsible. The harm cannot be undone and the imposition of a settlement is unfair to the labour participants.

I hope the minister will protect farmers, grain workers and all people affected by the current impasse by acting responsibly in imposing a non-disruptive settlement mechanism that will not interfere with the provisions of collective bargaining.

Kyoto Protocol

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, six out of ten provinces are on record as opposing the Kyoto accord. That number will grow as it becomes clear how ruinous this scheme will be to their economies.

There was a time when the Liberals boasted that they were a national consensus party. That was forgotten in 1993 when consensus building was seen as less efficient and more time consuming than prime ministerial rule.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify proceeding with this ill-conceived and economically dangerous accord when 60% of the provinces are opposed to it?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's preamble to the question is not correct.

The fact is that we are striving to get cooperation with all the provinces and territories. The hon. member fails to point out that 14 first ministers, every first minister in the country, in 1997 after the Kyoto agreement instructed their ministers of environment and their ministers of energy to work together to come up with an implementation plan.

These are facts which he conveniently ignores in coming to the inaccurate conclusion that he does.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite interesting. Yes, they wanted to do it but after two years of the government messing up they got nowhere and they want to cancel it.

The Premier of Ontario says that the Prime Minister has no intention of implementing Kyoto because he knows it is unworkable and would throw hundreds of thousands of Canadians onto the unemployment lines. That is the Premier of Ontario saying that today and he has seen the two year plan. All we got yesterday were gross generalities and nothing in terms of what the real true economic impacts will be. Instead of blowing smoke in the faces of Canadians, when will the government release the true cost estimates of Kyoto?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the document we tabled yesterday does in fact indicate what the economic effects are of implementing the Kyoto protocol, as prepared through the modelling we have done. Of course we say, quite correctly I think, that we cannot anticipate every cost because we do not know the interest rates in the future and we do not know other factors in the economy in the future.

As far as we can, we have the best figures that are available and we have done that in cooperation with the private sector.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the ministers and the premiers across Canada do not understand this minister is that even in his own riding he has a million gallons a day of raw sewage going into the ocean, including that from his own home, yet he is trying to tell us he now wants to clean up the air. It is the same kind of situation. It is hard to understand what the Liberals are really talking about. Canadians are worried sick that the Liberals are going to put them through the wringer with this accord. They are understandably worried about soaring heating costs and fuel prices.

How does the government intend to force consumers to shoulder the responsibility for 20% of the emission reductions?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the scare tactics that the hon. member so often uses.

The fact is that the figures he asked for, which I mentioned in my response to the earlier question, indicate that the extra cost for conventional crude is in the neighbourhood of 3¢ a barrel. There are 200 litres in a barrel of oil, work it out. For the non-conventional, for the synthetic crude, the figures are about 14¢ a barrel. Even if these figures are out by some margin, say it is double, that is 30¢ a barrel of 200 litres and the price of oil at the present time is $30 a barrel.

Health

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Kirby report has just come out and it is like a breath of fresh air when it comes to the health care system. One thing that is suggested is new money for medicare, medicare that in fact the Liberals have starved.

I would like to get a commitment from the finance minister today, a commitment that if there is new money to be found for medicare, and that is a laudable goal, that it will not be found by raising new taxes.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we will review the report carefully.

If the hon. member would like to be part of the prebudget consultations, I invite him to do so. I would be very interested in hearing him make very specific suggestions about where he thinks any additional spending ought to come from. If he is not prepared to do that, then we will just make the decisions based on the consultations we have on our side.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me make a specific suggestion: that we take it out of the wasteful spending of the government.

The Deputy Prime Minister somewhat jokingly said that he would rather jump off the Peace Tower than raise taxes. I have a little news for him. He would not have to jump off the Peace Tower. He would be pushed off the Peace Tower by the millions of Canadians who are fed up with the taxes that the government has raised.

My question stands. I would like a commitment from the finance minister today that he will not raise new taxes to put money into medicare. It should come from the wasteful spending of the government.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a place for a lot of rhetoric, but the spending on programs, out of total government expenditures, is 37¢ on the dollar. Before that come transfers to the elderly and to the provinces as well as payment on interest on the debt, which we have brought down quite sharply since we have been in office.

If he wants to be specific, yesterday they were asking for us to transfer the air security charge to the overall taxpayer. They want us to increase defence--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

Kyoto Protocol

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the Johannesburg summit, the Prime Minister categorically stated, and I quote:

Before the end of the year, the Parliament of Canada will be asked to vote on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

However, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment only talked about having a debate in 2002.

To make sure we are not taking a step backwards, will the Minister of the Environment state again the Prime Minister's commitment and confirm that Parliament will vote on ratifying Kyoto in 2002?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is very important to know that there will be a vote in this House, following a debate during which all members will have the opportunity to express their point of view. It will happen in the year 2002.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, the minister is qualifying the comments he made yesterday in this House when he told us he was hoping that the debate in the House would take place before the end of the year.

However, I will remind the minister that on October--he might have read the House of Commons Debates --, during question period, the Prime Minister made things very clear and said, in answer to a question, “There will be a vote before the end of the year on the ratification.”

Are we to understand that the Minister of the Environment is committing today, on behalf of the government, to ratify the Kyoto protocol in 2002? Is that right?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in South Africa, in Johannesburg, the Prime Minister clearly stated that before the end of the year we will have a debate in this House, as well as in the Senate, on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Since then, he has talked about the vote and said that it would happen before the end of the year. For my part, as a minister, I welcome both things the Prime Minister wants to do.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2001, the Prime Minister pledged to ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of this year.

Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment justified his implementation plan by saying that the government did not have to reward again, as if it had already done so, those businesses that took it upon themselves to become more energy efficient.

Does the Minister of the Environment realize that his statement confirms that the government is totally ruling out, in its implementation plan, as we feared, the polluter pay principle?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question two, three or four times. The polluter pay principle is very important. However, there are a number of other principles that are also very important, including setting the lowest possible price. Now, this is something important, as is not to disadvantage any region of the country with a plan.

Yes, I take the polluter pay principle seriously, but we must not forget the other issues that are important for other Canadians.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a unanimous motion, the Quebec National Assembly called the federal implementation plan inequitable, because it does not take into account the efforts already made and because it unduly favours the oil industry at the expense of Quebec's manufacturing sector.

Will the minister admit that the territorial approach is the only one that can guarantee that the players will be treated equitably under the Kyoto protocol implementation plan in Canada?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly voted in favour of a resolution, which provides in part that the province intends “to do its fair share under a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada”.

I fully agree that we must have a plan under which each province will do its fair share.

Justice

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I want to congratulate him on his appointment.

Amanda Zhao, a young Chinese student living in Burnaby, was murdered last week. This followed brutal attacks on a number of Korean women in the months immediately preceding. It took over a week for the RCMP to publicize Amanda's disappearance and the Chinese consulate was not informed as international protocol requires.

What steps is the minister taking to ensure that there will be a full, vigorous, public review of the circumstances that led to the unacceptable delay in reporting this? What steps will the minister take to ensure it--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Solicitor General.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to Ms. Zhao family and friends for their loss under such tragic circumstances.

As the member probably should know, the RCMP is conducting an internal review of the matter and it has already indicated that it will make the results of that review public.

Halifax Harbour

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who makes the Halifax harbour clean-up announcements.

The government is currently committed to paying one-third of the cost of the clean up of St. John's harbour, but only 10% of the cost of the Halifax clean-up. Without the same funding as St. John's, Halifax-Dartmouth residents will have to pay a significant increase in their water bills over the next five years.

Will the minister put the same one-third commitment into the Halifax project as into the St. John's project and stop the unfair tax hikes in the HRM water bills?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the regional-municipal council for its action in improving water quality conditions in Halifax harbour. It has made the decision not to phase in the project but to advance immediately. We are contributing $30 million toward that project in partnership with the province, matching the province. I have indicated to the mayor, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, that if the council should wish to phase in the program over a number of years, like many other programs are done, then we may be able to assist in further phases and we will consider doing so in the future.